Links relacionados

Bookmark

Areté

versão impressa ISSN 1016-913X

Resumo

John Etchemendy claims that, given the failure of the Tarskian intuitive notion of logical consequence, there is no reason to consider formality as a necessary condition for this relationship. This paper critiques this argument. First, it seeks to show that Etchemendys critique to Tarskian analysis assumes two requisites of elucidatory success that cannot be held together reasonably. Secondly, it shows that, once the previous assumption is rejected, two arguments in favour of the extensional adequacy of the former argument actually support formalism. Finally, this paper reviews some well known pragmatic considerations in favour of formalism.